Your mistaken assumption is that its just pretend that gun control don’t work. Assume they do, now its not so stupid to call for gun control, is it? You see when you make up strawmen, any argument you spew forth sounds good. “Hey guys! Banning guns will cure cancer and give every man an erection! Its a great idea!” That’s kind of what you thought I said, but with less erection and more straw
Freedoms can and should be sacrificed. Free is having an open border with no immigration controls, do you want that? Free is being able to harass someone and stalk them, do you want that? Free is if your neighbor decides to play loud music from 1am to 5am and you can’t do anything to stop that, do you want that? So don’t bring up freedom until you know what the fuck you’re talking about. It is perfectly fine to trade some freedom for security, you’re doing it now, we’re all doing it, we just differ on how much. A complete gun ban is a perfectly reasonable amount of freedom for me to trade away to get better security
In addition to Bone’s point about the declining gun violence, I’ll say that I remain unconvinced that most of the solutions proposed by gun control advocates would actually decrease violent crime. I think it’s fair to say that, as a whole, the country has moved substantially towards the gun rights’ position on gun laws in the last two decades, and, despite dire predictions of soaring violence, we’ve seen crime decline.
Genuine curiosity here: what makes you believe that “a complete gun ban” will get you better security?
I would certainly like to have mine in the house when Darryl Dennis breaks into the house.
In fact, an attempt at a complete gun ban would almost certainly lead to much more death, as crazy gun nuts shoot government agents who come to take their guns.
For what it’s worth, any attempt at a meaningful reduction in gun crime would have to actually look at the causes of gun crime; urban youth shooting each other with cheap handguns, and criminals of every ethnicity committing crime with cheap handguns. Flag draped tea-partiers with dozens of expensive scary black rifles account for a negligible amount of gun crime. The left will never perform this analysis because they think it’s racist, but if they did they’d be able to come up with some plausible methods that might actually limit gun crime:
[ul]
[li]Stricter enforcement of existing laws on handguns[/li][li]Raising the minimum age necessary to purchase handguns[/li][li]Increased penalties for handgun possession[/li][li]A substantial tax on handgun purchases, making new weapons unprofitable for street crime[/li][/ul]
I don’t necessarily agree with these provisions, and I don’t think there’s any need for a law that implements them, but I think they could plausibly decrease handgun crime. Most of what liberals are pushing for is ineffectual at best.
You said “Gun banners like me… would accept a lopsided deal to look like something’s being done…”
“To look like something’s being done” is a fucking stupid reason to introduce a law.
Of course it it, but politicians want to become re elected.
Please provide a cite.
Come, now, it is obvious to the meanest mentality, being in the Constitution.
Great Britain, the revolution and all that.
Admittedly useless now that the government has things like aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, and drones.
The drafters of the Constitution clearly had reservations about it working, it was the first after all. They clearly said in the document itself to trash it if it was failing.
Nowhere in the Second Amendment is any intent of an armed populace to decide by mob the government is a tyranny and stage a coup. They were most afraid of a government that would use the people to house their soldiers and thought the lesser evil would be for the citizens to arm themselves in the interest of the state.
Where’s the rest of the list?
Bone, that is fantastic, a 2008 court ruling. Have anything regarding intent by the people alive when the second amendment was written. And bonus points, actually voted for it.
A brief Google search does not tell me when and by whom the amendments were ratified. I presume the Constitution provides for amendments.
I note your caveat at the end, but: it’s already 21, what arbitrary age should we set it to? Yes, that means that you can join the military, be issued a handgun, and yet cannot buy your own at the store.
You’ve made the mistake of asking an incoherent question. Rephrase at your leisure.
But in the military it’s their gun, they tell you who you can and cannot shoot, and they can take it away from you at any time without notice.
The topic of the post was gun violence, and you moved the goalposts to strictly limit it to gun homicides. What about intentional shootings that did not result in death, accidental shootings that resulted in death, accidental shootings that did not result in death, and suicides? When all those are included, has gun violence increased or decreased?